Re: sept 11

Hi Manuel and everyone,

Just been looking at one of those web sites
to follow the disucssion about sept 11.

First, so you know where I'm coming from,
I'm not very inclined towards these grand
conspiracy type hypotheses.
I know conspiracies on a large scale
do happen sometimes, but in
rather special circumstances - or
maybe more often with
mild fairly inconsequential type
conspiracies.

I'm more inclined to accept that
maybe the Bush administration weren't
as energetic as they might have been
in following up warnings of what might
happen because they didn't appreciate
the magnitude of what would be involved
and maybe rather wanted, though probably not openly
admitted (or not by many), a pretext for war.
Then wanted to cover up the evidence for those attitudes
maybe with quite a strong motivation once
they realised the horror of what had actually
happened.

That I could imagine people getting drawn
into in fairly large numbers and maybe
then wanting to not acknowledge they
had been involved once they realised
what had happened.

But the hypothesis that the
government itself planned the event
I find quite extreme and hard to
consider. Could be but they would
really have to be kind of going
a bit insane in the sense of
getting really out of touch with
reality to a surprising extent.
And it would show an astonishing lack of concern
for their own citizens. It is the
sort of thing people do when they
think of someone as an enemy to be
defeated at all costs, and why
should they think of their own
citizens as such? Yes people do
sometimes have that attitude towards
particular elements of society,
maybe particular races or people
who live in particular locations
- but here the only common thing
is that they are airplane travellers and
office workers. Which puts them in
precisely the same category as
the people alleged to be involved
in the conspiracy. I find that
hard to believe.

So I'm coming to it with that prejudice.

Also I know that I have no special
knowledge in the field and I know
how things can seem scientifically
valid if you read them and aren't involved
in the paraticular field yourself
- e.g. why are the stars not visible
in the Nasa moon surface photos -
almost anyone with a long term interest in
and study of astronomy would be able to say
why. But if you have little
astronomical background it seems
an imppressive data to suggest
some may be fabricated.

So anyway it seems to me the
most impressive bit is about the
alleged faked cell phone calls.
If that were true then it could
hardly be a terrorist organisation
that did it.

So - is it true that you can't
make cell phone calls from
airplanes above a certain height?
That's something one just
can't test as a private individual
as no-one is allowed to make
the test. I'm not convinced
by the experiment using another
type of airplane because there
must be many variables involved
and I don't know what is significant.
E.g. is it significant that the
passenger department is larger
and does the location of the
engines etc have significance?

And are the planes really faraday
cages - obviously not perfect ones
or you couldn't phone from the
ground. Is the risk of causing
those cascades really so high
that one would expect them
to have occurred? The rule could
be in place even if it were a
1 in 10,000 risk as there
would be 1000s & 1000s of cell phone
calls from airplanes if it were
permitted to make them.

So I'm not convinced at all. Not
on the basis of what I just read.

But I agree it merits investigation
and wouldn't be suprised if one found
that the administration had had
surprising lapses and blind spots
in the area - which need not be
planned out though. Not all lapses
are planned lapses. People don't
always pass on things that they
should in the best of situations.
Take the problems that have beset
Nasa in recent years for instance -
no-one to my knowledge suggests that
there is a conspiracy out to cause
failed space missions but they happen
often through human failings.

Politicians are hesitant about
making things public when they
are uncertain about how they will
reflect back on them or if they
are concerned about public reaction
to them, and so on, and all that
can build up to something that
has an appearance of a grand plan
when it is structured rather by
a pervading mood or atrmosphere
amongst a particular group of people
- in this case perhaps of negligence
and unconcern in the
general area of possible terrorist
incidents and with a focus on
wish to engage wars with terrorists
in their home countries, and then
lots of small decisions by people
all sharing that kind of general
attitude and ethos, which then
come together to form an organised
seeming response that actually has
no definite overall architect or plan as such.

Just a thought, and possibly a
slightly different perspective on the
discussion.

I agree that it looks quite a lot
as though some things are being covered
up that should be brought to light
and investigated, whatever they are.

Who knows, also, maybe indeed they might be things
in the details that could well lead to a
president's impeachment (perhaps for negligence
in his duties) or something if disclosed -
not suggesting that that in particular
is true at all - but anything of that general
ilk would be quite an incentive for covering them
up for those loyal to the government.

Without an investigation
then one can only say just that some
of it seems a bit fishy somehow
and I'd agree that it looks as if it
should be looked into by an official and
uninvolved group of people with the
expertise to do so. Like the committee
that investigated the Challenger disaster
for instance.

Robert

It might be of interest to point out that a cover up was already in the
making with this one. One which Feymann refused to go along with. He was a
rare animal and I would hate to take bets on that such a committee would
have one like him.

Robert Walker wrote:

> Like the committee
> that investigated the Challenger disaster
> for instance.
>
> Robert
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

> It might be of interest to point out that a cover up was
> already in the making with this one. One which Feymann
> refused to go along with. He was a rare animal and I
> would hate to take bets on that such a committee would
> have one like him.

I'm not aware of any cover up. What I remember is that
Feynman broke away from the group because he thought they
were wrong. He did acuse some of them of wanting to go
along with the wrong idea because it was easier for them,
but at no time did he suggest a conspiracy, that I heard.

That's the way it goes with these things. It's a classic
error to look at an outcome and fabricate a planner to
explain it. Human incompetence, individual ass-covering,
etc. etc. goes a long way.

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:

> > It might be of interest to point out that a cover up was
> > already in the making with this one. One which Feymann
> > refused to go along with. He was a rare animal and I
> > would hate to take bets on that such a committee would
> > have one like him.
>
> I'm not aware of any cover up. What I remember is that
> Feynman broke away from the group because he thought they
> were wrong. He did acuse some of them of wanting to go
> along with the wrong idea because it was easier for them,
> but at no time did he suggest a conspiracy, that I heard.

If they all came to the idea of presenting the same wrong idea, how is
this different than a conspiracy? even if such things are implied, it is
such. Feymann would have not interest in putting them into that position
either, he just wanted the truth to be known and it goes back to, wasn't
it reagan who demanded they take off within the week for political
reasons. So the flights was forced in cold weather and we saw what
happened.

All think tanks are centers of conspiracies otherwise why would they have
them at such high cost. people go in and plan strategies. It is naive to
think everything is done in the open, or that scientology is the only ones
on earth to work this way. If others elsewhere are doing it , you have to
do it yourself , otherwise , you end up losing to those who plan better.
When we run out of oil, the plans for the next steps would have already
been determined decades in advance. one russia collapsed, the plans for
the mid east were pulled out.

In fact microfest ( probably both of them ) are conspiracies to promote
exactly their own agendas.
it is not necessarily a bad thing but could be if the persons involved ,
lust for too much power.

>
>
> That's the way it goes with these things. It's a classic
> error to look at an outcome and fabricate a planner to
> explain it. Human incompetence, individual ass-covering,
> etc. etc. goes a long way.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

> > > It might be of interest to point out that a cover up was
> > > already in the making with this one. One which Feymann
> > > refused to go along with. He was a rare animal and I
> > > would hate to take bets on that such a committee would
> > > have one like him.
> >
> > I'm not aware of any cover up. What I remember is that
> > Feynman broke away from the group because he thought they
> > were wrong. He did acuse some of them of wanting to go
> > along with the wrong idea because it was easier for them,
> > but at no time did he suggest a conspiracy, that I heard.
>
> If they all came to the idea of presenting the same wrong idea,
> how is this different than a conspiracy?

1. Because sometimes people are just wrong for no reason.
2. Sometimes they're wrong because they're not very bright.
3. Sometimes they're wrong because they didn't follow the
scientific method.
4. Sometimes they're wrong because they *unconsciously*
prefer the wrong answer.
5. Sometimes they're wrong because they're lying, because
they *consciously* prefer the wrong answer.
6. Sometimes they *all get together* and *plan* on lying,
because they *consciously* prefer the wrong answer.

Only in the last case do we have a *conspiracy*.

Now, where do conspiracy theorists fit in the above
picture? I'm guessing #3 and #4.

-Carl

Hi Robert,

>I'm not very inclined towards these grand
>conspiracy type hypotheses.

Neither am I, but I cannot help seeing the gaping
holes in the story as it's commonly known.

>But the hypothesis that the
>government itself planned the event
>I find quite extreme and hard to
>consider.

I thought so too, before I read a book about it and became
interested. Unfortunately it seems to prevent people
from seeing things hidden in plain sight, so to say.

>Not all lapses are planned lapses.

Right, but in any case the team that was hunting bin
Laden in Afghanistan and was told to stop didn't think
this was an unplanned lapse.

Manuel

the point is is that they had predetermined that they were going to
present the wrong answer. and all of them the SAME wrong answer. Obviously
they had looked at it via the scientific method so how did they arrive at
this if not by plan.

Carl Lumma wrote:

> > > > It might be of interest to point out that a cover up was
> > > > already in the making with this one. One which Feymann
> > > > refused to go along with. He was a rare animal and I
> > > > would hate to take bets on that such a committee would
> > > > have one like him.
> > >
> > > I'm not aware of any cover up. What I remember is that
> > > Feynman broke away from the group because he thought they
> > > were wrong. He did acuse some of them of wanting to go
> > > along with the wrong idea because it was easier for them,
> > > but at no time did he suggest a conspiracy, that I heard.
> >
> > If they all came to the idea of presenting the same wrong idea,
> > how is this different than a conspiracy?
>
> 1. Because sometimes people are just wrong for no reason.
> 2. Sometimes they're wrong because they're not very bright.
> 3. Sometimes they're wrong because they didn't follow the
> scientific method.
> 4. Sometimes they're wrong because they *unconsciously*
> prefer the wrong answer.
> 5. Sometimes they're wrong because they're lying, because
> they *consciously* prefer the wrong answer.
> 6. Sometimes they *all get together* and *plan* on lying,
> because they *consciously* prefer the wrong answer.
>
> Only in the last case do we have a *conspiracy*.
>
> Now, where do conspiracy theorists fit in the above
> picture? I'm guessing #3 and #4.
>
> -Carl
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

In a message dated 6/9/2004 1:42:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
kraiggrady@... writes:

> In fact microfest ( probably both of them ) are conspiracies to promote
> exactly their own agendas.
> it

That's why an agenda is always "a gender" and involves sexual politics as
well.

Johnny

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I knew i would sucker you in to this with that statement:)

Afmmjr@... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/9/2004 1:42:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> kraiggrady@... writes:
>
> > In fact microfest ( probably both of them ) are conspiracies to promote
> > exactly their own agendas.
> > it
>
> That's why an agenda is always "a gender" and involves sexual politics as
> well.
>
> Johnny
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

> the point is is that they had predetermined that they were
> going to present the wrong answer.

This is the point I'm disputing. Where did Feynman say this?

> Obviously they had looked at it via the scientific method

Not obvious. In fact, Feynman claimed this is what they
failed to do. Just because claims to use the scientific
method, or is a "scientist", doesn't mean they're doing
science.

> so how did they arrive at this if not by plan.

It is also important to recognize that groups of people can
exhibit complex, coordinated behavoir without central
planning. This was noted by Smith in the 1700's I believe.
By your reasoning, the price of wheat is dictated by a secret
group in Nebraska.

-Carl

Hi Carl,

> It is also important to recognize that groups of people can
> exhibit complex, coordinated behavoir without central
> planning. This was noted by Smith in the 1700's I believe.

Yes, what about a flock of geese? Each follows instinct but
they fly in an approximate geometric v shape across
the sky. If they were able to communicate and plan
you would think there had to be a planner and probably
also a leader who organised that pattern, and
it would take a lot of convincing to believe
otherwise. But we know they don't make plans
in the human fashion. It is just something
that emerges as they fly from the social behaviour of
all the individual geese in the group.

Robert

hi Robert,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Walker"
<robertwalker@n...> wrote:

> Hi Carl,
>
> > It is also important to recognize that groups of people can
> > exhibit complex, coordinated behavoir without central
> > planning. This was noted by Smith in the 1700's I believe.
>
> Yes, what about a flock of geese? Each follows instinct but
> they fly in an approximate geometric v shape across
> the sky. If they were able to communicate and plan
> you would think there had to be a planner and probably
> also a leader who organised that pattern, and
> it would take a lot of convincing to believe
> otherwise. But we know they don't make plans
> in the human fashion. It is just something
> that emerges as they fly from the social behaviour of
> all the individual geese in the group.
>
> Robert

but do we really know that?

elephants exhibit certain behavior which researchers
used to find very strange: a whole group of them would
be standing around doing whatever they do, and then
suddenly they would all move to somewhere else as
if on cue.

the researchers were speculating that perhaps elephants
are capable of telepathy ... until finally just a
few years ago it was discovered that they emit
very-low-frequency sounds which are inaudible to
humans. the alpha elephant simply tells all the
others "let's go there" and they do. but since
we can't hear it, without special equipment we
can't tell that they're simply talking to each other.

perhaps geese *are* capable of planning their
flights in a more-or-less human fashion, and we
simply haven't yet discovered how they communicate.

-monz

Thanks Carl, for a truly intelligent post. Sorry for what I said
earlier.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > > It might be of interest to point out that a cover up was
> > > > already in the making with this one. One which Feymann
> > > > refused to go along with. He was a rare animal and I
> > > > would hate to take bets on that such a committee would
> > > > have one like him.
> > >
> > > I'm not aware of any cover up. What I remember is that
> > > Feynman broke away from the group because he thought they
> > > were wrong. He did acuse some of them of wanting to go
> > > along with the wrong idea because it was easier for them,
> > > but at no time did he suggest a conspiracy, that I heard.
> >
> > If they all came to the idea of presenting the same wrong idea,
> > how is this different than a conspiracy?
>
> 1. Because sometimes people are just wrong for no reason.
> 2. Sometimes they're wrong because they're not very bright.
> 3. Sometimes they're wrong because they didn't follow the
> scientific method.
> 4. Sometimes they're wrong because they *unconsciously*
> prefer the wrong answer.
> 5. Sometimes they're wrong because they're lying, because
> they *consciously* prefer the wrong answer.
> 6. Sometimes they *all get together* and *plan* on lying,
> because they *consciously* prefer the wrong answer.
>
> Only in the last case do we have a *conspiracy*.
>
> Now, where do conspiracy theorists fit in the above
> picture? I'm guessing #3 and #4.
>
> -Carl

Kraig, it's very common in science, in crime investigation, and in
other areas that a certain wrong answer will present itself and fool
everyone. Often it takes centuries before someone clever enough to
see the better explanation comes along. And I'd like to see your
definition of "scientific method" as applied to the Challenger
disaster! Please, lay it out for us.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> the point is is that they had predetermined that they were going to
> present the wrong answer. and all of them the SAME wrong answer.
Obviously
> they had looked at it via the scientific method so how did they
arrive at
> this if not by plan.
>
> Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> > > > > It might be of interest to point out that a cover up was
> > > > > already in the making with this one. One which Feymann
> > > > > refused to go along with. He was a rare animal and I
> > > > > would hate to take bets on that such a committee would
> > > > > have one like him.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not aware of any cover up. What I remember is that
> > > > Feynman broke away from the group because he thought they
> > > > were wrong. He did acuse some of them of wanting to go
> > > > along with the wrong idea because it was easier for them,
> > > > but at no time did he suggest a conspiracy, that I heard.
> > >
> > > If they all came to the idea of presenting the same wrong idea,
> > > how is this different than a conspiracy?
> >
> > 1. Because sometimes people are just wrong for no reason.
> > 2. Sometimes they're wrong because they're not very bright.
> > 3. Sometimes they're wrong because they didn't follow the
> > scientific method.
> > 4. Sometimes they're wrong because they *unconsciously*
> > prefer the wrong answer.
> > 5. Sometimes they're wrong because they're lying, because
> > they *consciously* prefer the wrong answer.
> > 6. Sometimes they *all get together* and *plan* on lying,
> > because they *consciously* prefer the wrong answer.
> >
> > Only in the last case do we have a *conspiracy*.
> >
> > Now, where do conspiracy theorists fit in the above
> > picture? I'm guessing #3 and #4.
> >
> > -Carl
> >
> >
> > Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> > To post to the list, send to
> > metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > You don't have to be a member to post.
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Walker"
<robertwalker@n...> wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> > It is also important to recognize that groups of people can
> > exhibit complex, coordinated behavoir without central
> > planning. This was noted by Smith in the 1700's I believe.
>
> Yes, what about a flock of geese? Each follows instinct but
> they fly in an approximate geometric v shape across
> the sky. If they were able to communicate and plan
> you would think there had to be a planner and probably
> also a leader who organised that pattern, and
> it would take a lot of convincing to believe
> otherwise. But we know they don't make plans
> in the human fashion. It is just something
> that emerges as they fly from the social behaviour of
> all the individual geese in the group.
>
> Robert

Don't forget the behavior of ants, which is far more striking still.

Then why do you think Feymann had to avoid bringing in the others in the
explanation. I am sure if he felt comfortable with presenting the real
reason ( which the more recent one, we lack any feymann to present what
really happened). He interrupted the news conference by taking the o ring
material and smashing it on the desk. Unless you think he just wanted to
be the star. Which i will give the man more credit than that.

BTW Zorthian , his good artist friend, just recently passed away here. On
his ranch I first saw tuvan singers on horseback along with the well known
blind harmonic singer. Feyman's nobel prize winning notes were plastered
on the inside of an , i believe old 57 chevy, and half buried there which
you could walk up to and peer into the window. not sure what will happen
to this stuff, now that he is gone.

Paul Erlich wrote:

> Kraig, it's very common in science, in crime investigation, and in
> other areas that a certain wrong answer will present itself and fool
> everyone. Often it takes centuries before someone clever enough to
> see the better explanation comes along. And I'd like to see your
> definition of "scientific method" as applied to the Challenger
> disaster! Please, lay it out for us.
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

So everyone one walks around the heritage foundation and communicates by
Morphogenetic resonance?

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Walker"
> <robertwalker@n...> wrote:
> > Hi Carl,
> >
> > > It is also important to recognize that groups of people can
> > > exhibit complex, coordinated behavoir without central
> > > planning. This was noted by Smith in the 1700's I believe.
> >
> > Yes, what about a flock of geese? Each follows instinct but
> > they fly in an approximate geometric v shape across
> > the sky. If they were able to communicate and plan
> > you would think there had to be a planner and probably
> > also a leader who organised that pattern, and
> > it would take a lot of convincing to believe
> > otherwise. But we know they don't make plans
> > in the human fashion. It is just something
> > that emerges as they fly from the social behaviour of
> > all the individual geese in the group.
> >
> > Robert
>
> Don't forget the behavior of ants, which is far more striking still.
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

I would like to see yours that explains how there was a seven foot hole
through 3 layers of the pentagon and how the first photo shows no entrance
whole for a plane, nor any debris

Paul Erlich wrote:

> And I'd like to see your
> definition of "scientific method" as applied to the Challenger
> disaster! Please, lay it out for us.
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

> Then why do you think Feymann had to avoid bringing in the
> others in the explanation.

Sometimes people get attached to their beliefs and refuse
to abandon them even in the face of better explanations.

Or maybe Feynman just became too bombastic, and the others
felt too threatened to join in.

> He interrupted the news conference by taking the o ring
> material and smashing it on the desk. Unless you think he
> just wanted to be the star. Which i will give the man more
> credit than that.

Actually this is typical Feynman. He loved to be the star!
He would often save his ideas in secret and present them all
at once in a public talk, so his audience wouldn't have time
to be fully critical of them. Or at least, this was the
acusation of Carver Mead. Also he was known to get into
raucous fights with Gell-Mann.

-Carl

Feymann was outright hostile to the others

Carl Lumma wrote:

> > Then why do you think Feymann had to avoid bringing in the
> > others in the explanation.
>
> Sometimes people get attached to their beliefs and refuse
> to abandon them even in the face of better explanations.
>
> Or maybe Feynman just became too bombastic, and the others
> felt too threatened to join in.
>
> > He interrupted the news conference by taking the o ring
> > material and smashing it on the desk. Unless you think he
> > just wanted to be the star. Which i will give the man more
> > credit than that.
>
> Actually this is typical Feynman. He loved to be the star!
> He would often save his ideas in secret and present them all
> at once in a public talk, so his audience wouldn't have time
> to be fully critical of them. Or at least, this was the
> acusation of Carver Mead. Also he was known to get into
> raucous fights with Gell-Mann.
>
> -Carl
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:

> BTW Zorthian , his good artist friend, just recently passed away
here. On
> his ranch I first saw tuvan singers on horseback along with the
well known
> blind harmonic singer.

Paul Pena?

What's that?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> So everyone one walks around the heritage foundation and
communicates by
> Morphogenetic resonance?
>
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Walker"
> > <robertwalker@n...> wrote:
> > > Hi Carl,
> > >
> > > > It is also important to recognize that groups of people can
> > > > exhibit complex, coordinated behavoir without central
> > > > planning. This was noted by Smith in the 1700's I believe.
> > >
> > > Yes, what about a flock of geese? Each follows instinct but
> > > they fly in an approximate geometric v shape across
> > > the sky. If they were able to communicate and plan
> > > you would think there had to be a planner and probably
> > > also a leader who organised that pattern, and
> > > it would take a lot of convincing to believe
> > > otherwise. But we know they don't make plans
> > > in the human fashion. It is just something
> > > that emerges as they fly from the social behaviour of
> > > all the individual geese in the group.
> > >
> > > Robert
> >
> > Don't forget the behavior of ants, which is far more striking
still.
> >
> >
> > Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> > To post to the list, send to
> > metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > You don't have to be a member to post.
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

Huh? What does the Challenger have to do with the Pentagon? It looks
like you're trying to "turn the tables" on me here, but I've never
said anything about the Pentagon, so you're just being evasive.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> I would like to see yours that explains how there was a seven foot
hole
> through 3 layers of the pentagon and how the first photo shows no
entrance
> whole for a plane, nor any debris
>
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> > And I'd like to see your
> > definition of "scientific method" as applied to the Challenger
> > disaster! Please, lay it out for us.
> >
> >
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

A common failing among the staunchest seekers of the truth. "Allergic
to ignorance" you might say.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> Feymann was outright hostile to the others
>
> Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> > > Then why do you think Feymann had to avoid bringing in the
> > > others in the explanation.
> >
> > Sometimes people get attached to their beliefs and refuse
> > to abandon them even in the face of better explanations.
> >
> > Or maybe Feynman just became too bombastic, and the others
> > felt too threatened to join in.
> >
> > > He interrupted the news conference by taking the o ring
> > > material and smashing it on the desk. Unless you think he
> > > just wanted to be the star. Which i will give the man more
> > > credit than that.
> >
> > Actually this is typical Feynman. He loved to be the star!
> > He would often save his ideas in secret and present them all
> > at once in a public talk, so his audience wouldn't have time
> > to be fully critical of them. Or at least, this was the
> > acusation of Carver Mead. Also he was known to get into
> > raucous fights with Gell-Mann.
> >
> > -Carl
> >
> >
> > Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> > To post to the list, send to
> > metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > You don't have to be a member to post.
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

Yes i could not remember his name.

Paul Erlich wrote:

>
>
> Paul Pena?
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

no i am not, we are talking about "scientific method

Paul Erlich wrote:

> Huh? What does the Challenger have to do with the Pentagon? It looks
> like you're trying to "turn the tables" on me here, but I've never
> said anything about the Pentagon, so you're just being evasive.
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
> wrote:
> > I would like to see yours that explains how there was a seven foot
> hole
> > through 3 layers of the pentagon and how the first photo shows no
> entrance
> > whole for a plane, nor any debris
> >
> > Paul Erlich wrote:
> >
> > > And I'd like to see your
> > > definition of "scientific method" as applied to the Challenger
> > > disaster! Please, lay it out for us.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > -- -Kraig Grady
> > North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> > http://www.anaphoria.com
> > The Wandering Medicine Show
> > KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

hi kraig,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:

> BTW Zorthian , his good artist friend, just recently
> passed away here. On his ranch I first saw tuvan singers
> on horseback along with the well known blind harmonic singer.
> Feyman's nobel prize winning notes were plastered on
> the inside of an , i believe old 57 chevy, and half buried
> there which you could walk up to and peer into the window.
> not sure what will happen to this stuff, now that he is gone.

wow, i'm sorry to hear about Zorthian's passing.

i went to a birthday party for him on his ranch
a few years ago with Jonathan and Bill Wesley.
beautiful naked girls dancing around the bonfire,
that sort of thing ... it was a blast.

-monz